“…I know it when I see it…” -- Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
Several times a year, residents will call me about car trouble. Not their own, someone else’s -- on the street or in the driveway or even in the yard. There are too many or they are too large or they don’t seem to have moved in eons. They might be causing a safety hazard or they might be lowering property values. I understand your concern.
Most recently some friends of ours focused my attention on what my kids and I call the “beat-up Cadillac house.” Unfortunately, a resident in our neighborhood has taken advantage of his rights as a Prairie Villager to accumulate four or five Fleetwoods or Devilles or whatever and they are -- in one blogger’s opinion -- an eyesore. There are always one or two in the driveway and one or two parked on the back patio. This is a house on a corner lot that is slightly below the elevation of the street; everyone that drives by can see them as plain as day. There are also reports of nearly abandoned cars on Belinder and cars parked on the front yard around 79th and Canterbury.
As the ugly cars go, aesthetics are extremely hard to legislate. One person’s eyesore is another person’s “only form of transportation that I can afford; what does it look like, I’m made out of money?!?”
As far as the number of cars is concerned, that’s very difficult to regulate as well. It’s not entirely out of the question that each driver in a household could have his or her own car. And it’s not beyond reason that there might be four or even five drivers in a household. Fortunately, there are forces external to city ordinances that limit the number of cars that might end up parked outside a PV home: the expense of buying multiple cars, the expense of insuring and maintaining them, the desire to keep these possessions protected inside a garage, the feeling that having cars parked all over our property would be unattractive, etc.
Nevertheless, we have all seen examples of cars that don’t seem to be in regular use and so their unsightliness is even more frustrating. So we try to regulate what we can: By requiring that vehicles be licensed, we make sure that someone is going through the expense of paying taxes and insurance on them. By requiring that cars appear to have all their parts, we can at least make sure that air is in the tires and that vehicles cannot sit disassembled in plain view. By requiring that they be parked on “improved ground”, we ensure that no one parks cars on their lawn.
Unfortunately, it is my understanding that our city prosecutor does not feel it would be lawful to require that a vehicle owner prove to a city officer that a car actually runs or can move under its own power.
I don’t disagree that one can get a strong feeling that a particular vehicle or group of vehicles isn’t actively participating in a person making their living or commuting to school, it’s just there because the owner wants it there, he or she is saving it for something or someone or just likes having an extra vehicle around. But how do you turn that feeling into an illegal situation? Thus, the Potter Stewart reference and the parallel quandary.
I am very sensitive to safety and maintaining of property values but the ugly car that seems never to move is a very difficult situation to regulate. We may be able to improve on what already exists but it will take some thoughtful work. I would like to speak with my co-members of the Legislative and Finance committee about this and see what’s been discussed before but feel free to send your suggestions.
Most recently some friends of ours focused my attention on what my kids and I call the “beat-up Cadillac house.” Unfortunately, a resident in our neighborhood has taken advantage of his rights as a Prairie Villager to accumulate four or five Fleetwoods or Devilles or whatever and they are -- in one blogger’s opinion -- an eyesore. There are always one or two in the driveway and one or two parked on the back patio. This is a house on a corner lot that is slightly below the elevation of the street; everyone that drives by can see them as plain as day. There are also reports of nearly abandoned cars on Belinder and cars parked on the front yard around 79th and Canterbury.
As the ugly cars go, aesthetics are extremely hard to legislate. One person’s eyesore is another person’s “only form of transportation that I can afford; what does it look like, I’m made out of money?!?”
As far as the number of cars is concerned, that’s very difficult to regulate as well. It’s not entirely out of the question that each driver in a household could have his or her own car. And it’s not beyond reason that there might be four or even five drivers in a household. Fortunately, there are forces external to city ordinances that limit the number of cars that might end up parked outside a PV home: the expense of buying multiple cars, the expense of insuring and maintaining them, the desire to keep these possessions protected inside a garage, the feeling that having cars parked all over our property would be unattractive, etc.
Nevertheless, we have all seen examples of cars that don’t seem to be in regular use and so their unsightliness is even more frustrating. So we try to regulate what we can: By requiring that vehicles be licensed, we make sure that someone is going through the expense of paying taxes and insurance on them. By requiring that cars appear to have all their parts, we can at least make sure that air is in the tires and that vehicles cannot sit disassembled in plain view. By requiring that they be parked on “improved ground”, we ensure that no one parks cars on their lawn.
Unfortunately, it is my understanding that our city prosecutor does not feel it would be lawful to require that a vehicle owner prove to a city officer that a car actually runs or can move under its own power.
I don’t disagree that one can get a strong feeling that a particular vehicle or group of vehicles isn’t actively participating in a person making their living or commuting to school, it’s just there because the owner wants it there, he or she is saving it for something or someone or just likes having an extra vehicle around. But how do you turn that feeling into an illegal situation? Thus, the Potter Stewart reference and the parallel quandary.
I am very sensitive to safety and maintaining of property values but the ugly car that seems never to move is a very difficult situation to regulate. We may be able to improve on what already exists but it will take some thoughtful work. I would like to speak with my co-members of the Legislative and Finance committee about this and see what’s been discussed before but feel free to send your suggestions.
posted by Andrew Wang at 10:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home